Mediaboss Marketing

Source: 'Green Whistle', Steven Depolo, CC 2.0

Recently, National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was fired by the Trump administration after government officials leaked classified information to the press about phone communications between Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey I. Kyslyak, occurring prior to Trumps inauguration, involving (in part) the easing of sanctions on the Russians imposed by the Obama administration for their invasion of the Ukraine. In response, an outraged Trump administration focused its attention on finding and punishing the leakers for leaking classified government information to the press, but not on Flynns potentially illegal act of undermining existing government policy while still a civilian.

In the aftermath of the leak, the press has hotly debated the issue of what is more important, stopping leakers or investigating actions such as Flynns.The term whistleblowing has had a prominent place in these debates, with some parties to the debate using it to praise the leakers for their public service, while others decrying the leakers as criminals.

In thisemotionally charged contextwith potentially far-reaching consequences for national security, itcould prove helpful to seek a clearer understanding of the concepts involved, and their relationship to a democratic process. Indeed, the question of whether the actions of the leakers were justified is an ethical question, grist for the mill of analysis by moral philosophers.

In fact, the activity of whistleblowing has received considerable attention in the lastthree decadesby philosophers working in the areas of business and professional ethics. In my capacity as the editor and founder of the International Journal of Applied Philosophy, the worlds first comprehensive journal dedicated to the field, I have had an opportunity to help develop some of this literature, and have worked closely with some of the prolific writers in this area such as the late Frederick A. Elliston. So I feel a special obligation to weigh in on this matter. This blog entry is accordingly my contribution to the debate.

Blowing the whistle, as generally understood in the philosophical literature, involves disclosure by employees of businesses, public and private institutions, or government agencies, of illegal, immoral, or questionable practices occurring within those organizations. The motive of disclosure, even ifthis is to harm the perpetrator of the unacceptable practice, is irrelevant to whether an act qualifies as an act of whistleblowing. Thus, a person can blow the whistle for purely self-interested purposes, such as getting back at someone. As such, the question about the moral character of the individual making the disclosure is one matter; whether or not the individual engaged in whistle blowing, and whether or not the act is justified are logically distinct questions.

Therefore, the merit of the act of whistle blowing, as distinct from the motive of the whistleblower, needs to be assessed according to whether the weight of the wrong-doing is sufficient to justify the disclosure. So there can be very poor (morally unjustified) decisions to blow the whistle by very well intentioned whistleblowers,as when the matter could be more easily settled within the organization; but there also can be some very well founded ones, regardless of the motive, as when the danger is so serious that it needs to be brought to public light, and whistleblowing is likely to be the only way of accomplishing this goal.

Onepractical upshot is thatmedia arguments which revolve around whether the leakers in the Trump administration had nefarious motives to undermine the Trump administration are patently irrelevant to the merit of the act of whistleblowing. Indeed, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 makes this clear in its provision that, a disclosure shall not be excluded from [protection] because....of the employees or applicants motive for making the disclosure.

With respect to the legality of disclosures, the Whistleblowers Protection Act protects disclosures by federal employees, or former employees,which theemployeesbelieve evidence "(A) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation; or `(B) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety." So, the whistleblower must have reasonable belief that a violation exists; but, the motive for disclosing whatthe employeereasonably believes to be a violation is irrelevant.So, was the disclosure made by government officialsregarding Flynn'squestionable communications legally protected?

The answer is no. The Actalso requires that the information disclosed is "not specifically prohibited by law."Since the information in question was classified, it was not protected by this Act. However, the illegality of the disclosure does not mean that it wasunethical to disclose it. It instead means that the individuals who disclosed it were not immune from being prosecutedfor the disclosure.

In this manner, the whistleblowing in questionresembles significantly an act of civil disobedience. The latter involves a citizens refusal to comply with a certain law that is arguably immoral or unjust. Civil disobedience is an important way in which necessary legal change can be affected. Indeed, in our democracy, if nobody ever challenged unjust laws, they would not likely be changed. Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus to a white man in defiance of an Alabama state segregation law, and the rest is history. The law was iniquitous and needed to be challenged, and Rosa Parks (along with others) met that challenge and helped to change a law that needed to be changed.

In the case of whistleblowing, a private citizen can likewise help to affect necessary social change. Merrill Williams, a paralegal who took on the tobacco industry,violated a confidentiality agreement for the law firm he worked for in order to disclose that the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation was, for decades, intentionally hiding evidence that cigarettes were carcinogenic and addictive. On a federal level, in thefamous Watergate scandal, Associate Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Mark Felt (AKA Deep Throat) blew the whistle on the illegal activities of the Nixon administration, which led to the resignation of President Nixon as well as incarceration of White House Chief of Staff H. R. Haldeman and United States Attorney General John N. Mitchell, among others.Clearly, thereareunequivocal historical precedents demonstratingthatacts of whistleblowing canmake profoundly important contributionsto setting legal as well as moral limits on the abuse of power in protecting public welfare.

Both whistleblowing and civil disobedience alsoinvolve taking calculated personal risks in challenging illegal or immoral practices, including loss of ones job, harassment, death threats, physical injury, fines, and imprisonment. Inasmuch as the moral and/or legal gains are substantial, and the whistleblower seeks these changes for their own sake (not for self-serving reasons), individuals who engage in whistleblowing or civil disobedience exercise moral courage. This isnoteworthy because critics of whistleblowers and of the civilly disobedient sometimes uncritically charge that such individuals are necessarily traitors, criminals, or otherwise unethical or bad people. To the contrary, they may be among the most courageous, heroic, or patriotic people. Just consider Rosa Parks!She brokean Alabama statelaw,yetwe would be hard put tocall her acriminal. On the other hand, there is loyalty among thieves, but that does not make them ethical.

In a democracy, whistleblowing, as well as civil disobedience, serve a valuable function. Like the press,whistleblowers can help to expose flagrant violations of public trust by government trustees, often working cooperatively with the press, as in the Flynn case.This may be why corrupt political leaders who hate the press also tend to despisewhistleblowers. Insofar aswhistleblowers, like the press, seek transparency, they tend to be perceived as "the enemy."

Leaks of classified government information by a whistleblower, while illegal,can serve a valuable social purpose if it exposes a serious national danger. In leaking classified information, as in the case of information about the communications of Michael Flynn with the Russian Ambassador, the leak may be of monumental importance to national security. If there is an attempt to undermine national security by a foreign enemy, and those whom the people trust to protect them are colluding with this enemy, then such information arguably should be disclosed to the public as long as there is noreasonable alternative to prevent the potential harm. As in civil disobedience, we would expect that the leakers who are caught will be prosecuted. However, as members of a democratic society, we should also trust that the information that is leaked will be taken seriously and that any national security breaches that are exposed be fully investigated. This is how democracy works.

So was it morally justified for the government officials to leak the information about Flynns conversations? Flynn, it is claimed, lied to the Vice-President about the content of his conversations, denying that they involved discussions about sanctions on Russia. However, this matter could easily have been put to rest if the government officials disclosed this information to the V.P. or to their superiors, who could, in turn, inform the V.P. In fact, this actually happened when Acting Attorney General Sally Yates notified the White House of the intercepted communications. However, the potential harm was not merely that of lying to the V.P.; it was also about a potential breach of national security. Was thisurgent matter likely tobe handled effectively by the Trump administration without leaking the information to the press?

As it happened, the White House did not fire Flynn until after the information was leaked, even though it had received the information from the Acting Attorney General a few weeks prior. So, it is possible that the leakers did not perceive any other way of effectively addressing theperceived violationother than by blowing the whistle on Flynn.Doing somay have already succeeded in helping to removea"weak link" in the chain of command.However, it remains to be seen what comes next.

Link:
Whistleblowing, Civil Disobedience, and Democracy - Psychology Today (blog)

Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) in an interview Sunday pushed back on President Donald TrumpDonald TrumpChelsea Clinton attends Muslim solidarity rally in NYC Pentagon chief: 'I dont have any issues with the press' Kasich: The media is 'an important part of democracy' MOREs criticism of the press, saying the news media is a such an important part of democracy.

Kasich said on CNN's "State of the Union" that while he doesnt always agree with the press, their role is vital and necessary to hold people accountable.

Kasich recalled a recent meeting with Ohio reporters in which he praised their work.

"I said, I applaud you for following the facts and reporting a story, even at times when it is not easy," Kasich said.

"I have great respect for the press. I was once in the press," Kasich, who dropped out of the Republican presidential race last May, said on Sunday.

Trump has regularly called the media "fake news" or even "the opposition party." In recent tweets, he has urged Americans to disregard any reports that are critical of his administration.

See the original post here:
Kasich: The media is 'an important part of democracy' - The Hill

Congressman, constituents have spirited back and forth at Allegany Co. meeting

FILLMORE In a muddy parking lot behind a barn, democracy showed its face in Allegany County, and it had a number of questions for Rep. Tom Reed.

On Saturday, Reed, a Corning Republican held a town hall meeting at Allen Town Hall in Filmore, and was greeted by between 200 and 300 constituents. Many people raised concerns about the current course of policy under the new presidential administration of Donald Trump.

For those opposed to some of Reeds views, the scene felt wholly appropriate.

A muck-raker is a person who exposes political corruption, and here we are standing in the mud, said Sissy Mahoney of Hornell.

It was was much the same at three town hall meetings earlier in Chautauqua and Cattaraugus counties.

Were always excited to have Tom out talking to folks. Its been fun, and its part of democracy, said Reeds District Director Joe Simpolinski. Weve heard concerns from all areas of national policy, and we expected a vibrant conversation.

Some commented that the event was the biggest gathering around a political issues since the Bump the Dump Campaign in the early 1990s, and some of the faces were the same too.

Participants came for many different reasons, and to hear about several different policies, but they all demanded one thing straight forward answers from their guy in the House of Representatives.

Brian Webb, of Houghton attended the meeting to deliver a message on behalf of evangelical Christians.

I really care about how our actions impact people around the world, and climate change disproportionately impacts the poorest people the most, and Im here to engage with congressman Reed on this issue on behalf of Christians and conservatives who care about issues like climate change, he said.

Mike Kuna, of Clifton Springs, made the trip to Allegany County for more details on the Republican promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

I just want a plan from him. I dont care when it happens. Something needs to be in place," Kuna said.

I want to have a conversation with you, but first and foremost, I want to listen, Reed began, speaking into a bullhorn, so the massive and rowdy crowd could hear him.

Other local organized groups also made their presence felt, including Southern Tier Action Together.

Working with different activist groups in the 23rd Congressional District, weve crafted questions we hope will create dialogue and meaningful conversation between constituents and their elected official, the groups said in a statement issued on Saturday. Were people who care deeply about our towns and the well-being of our neighbors; some of us were born here, some came for a job, some came back because of love of this special part of New York State.

Topics ranged from the presidents tax returns, to Trump's ties to Russia, to fears that a Republican controlled government will abolish the Environmental Protection Agency.

Its just not there, Reed said of the Russian issue, expressing confidence after it was reported he had direct conversations with the president reading the allegations earlier this week.

However, the meeting was largely dominated by opposition to the proposed repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Andrea Meyers of Hornell was one of the fortunate people who got to question Reed.

Im a small business owner who works two to three part time jobs to supplement my income. My husband works for the City of Hornell. I have a step-son that has Downs syndrome. My family has insurance because of the Affordable Care Act because the citys insurance is far to expensive to afford. What are you going to do for me when I lose my insurance? she asked.

Reed did not waiver in his previously stated position of being in favor of repeal.

Reed said, We need to talk to (Hornell) Mayor (Shawn) Hogan about that. He then said that tax credits would be available under the Republican plan to subsidize costly insurance. He also promoted health savings accounts.

Reed was peppered with chants of You work for us and Do Your Job throughout, as people expressed their dissatisfaction with his stance. Several supportive spectators couter-chanted USA, USA, USA."

While some left dissatisfied with the depth to which Reed was able to answer some of their questions, most credited him for showing up in the first place, including Dr. Gary Ostrower, Reeds former professor at Alfred University.

This is democracy at its best, he said. The fact that Tom Reed held this meeting at all is impressive. Many Republican congressmen have bailed out because of fear or lack of courage. Mr. Reed showed up and answered questions for well over an hour.

There was a level of anger voiced in the crowd, but it stayed peaceful.

I think we have a president who is proving himself unfit to govern a free people, he said. He expresses an absence of integrity that is corrosive to a democracy, and to the extent that Congressman Reed supports him, I wasnt surprised at some of the anger.

Several groups, including members of Indivisible Hornell, said they would extend an invitation to Reed to attend a town hall meeting in the Hornell area in the near future.

Reed will be holding another round of town hall meetings in March, however specific dates and times are yet to be decided and announced.

See the original post:
Participation in democracy - Hornell Evening Tribune

At a rally for the ruling Zanu-PF party in Zimbabwe the wife of president Robert Mugabe praised her 91-yearold husband. One day when God decides that Mugabe dies, we will have his corpse appear as a candidate, she claimed. Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe, often with an iron fist, since Zanu-PF won elections in 1980 and he became prime minister. He joins many other long-serving leaders that dominated the 20th and early 21st century, such as Fidel Castro, Angolas Jose Eduardo Dos Santos and Equatorial Guineas Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo.

Until recently Yahya Jammeh of The Gambia was a member of the longest serving leader club, having ruled the country since a coup in 1994. Yet today Gambia has returned to democracy. The story of how that happened should be a model for the world, but unfortunately, because Gambia is a small West African state and media tends to be more obsessed with Donald Trumps Twitter feed than the goings on of billions of people in the world, we do not hear enough about this beautiful story.

Like many countries in the 20th century, the Republic of the Gambia first gained independence in the 1960s and immediately became in essence a one-party, one-man state under Dawda Jawara. From one-party rule came the inevitable coup in 1994 led by Yahya Jammeh. The Gambia is a small country whose shape follows the river of the same name. It has a population of two million people and is around the size of the US state of Connecticut. Under Jammeh democratic institutions existed and he won elections in 1996 and 2011 with around 70% of the vote. He took Gambia out of the Commonwealth in 2013, saying it would never be a member of any neo-colonial institution and declared the country to be the Islamic Republic of the Gambia in December 2015.

This was seen as an eccentric decision but it foreshadowed more authoritarianism to come. Opposition figures were jailed and when Jammeh went to elections in 2016 he expected to win. Instead Adama Barrow, a relatively unknown real estate executive, won 43% of the vote on December 1, 2016.

Initially Jammeh was conciliatory, saying If Barrow wants to work with us also, I have no problem with that. Eight days later Jammeh announced he rejected the results and was annulling the election.

IN MANY circumstances when rulers become increasingly authoritarian, the neighboring states, the United Nations and the world stands by and does nothing.

There is a drip-drip erosion of democracy and everyone shrugs. Its not for us to interfere in sovereign elections, is the wink-wink-nod-nod of states. Its why at the UN the dictatorships work together to put each other on the Human Rights Council, why the greatest abusers of womens rights somehow run the womens rights monitoring groups. Countries that supposedly support democracy work with countries like Iran without even an ounce of shame.

But West African states decided that Gambia would not be allowed to backtrack on its democracy. If he is not going, we have stand-by forces already alerted and these stand-by forces have to be able to intervene to restore the peoples wish, said Marcel Alain de Souza, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) commission president, on December 23.

Jammeh was given an ultimatum to concede the election and give up power. Colonel Abdou Ndiaye, spokesman for the Senegalese military, said on January 18 that Senegals forces are ready to intervene if needed after midnight if we cant find a diplomatic solution. As 26,000 Gambians fled the country, fearing conflict, the militaries of Nigeria and Ghana both agreed to participate in operations alongside Senegal.

The next day the ECOWAS troops went into Gambia while Barrow, who had fled the country, was sworn in as president at the Gambian embassy in Senegals capital of Dakar. Gambias 2,500-man army put up no reported resistance, some of its officers having already decided to desert Jammeh.

Within days Jammeh had fled the country, taking with him millions in cash, and Barrow returned to the capital in Banjul.

Some of his first announcements as president dealt with protecting the freedom of the press, reforming the dreaded local intelligence agency and removing Islamic from the name of the country. On January 18 he was sworn in for a second time on home soil. Regional and international leaders, such as Senegals Macky Sall and US assistant secretary of state for African affairs Linda Thomas-Greenfield and UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson sent messages of support.

The story of Gambias transition to democracy reads like a perfect script of how regional frameworks, such as ECOWAS and its military arm ECOMIG, as well as the international community can enforce the rights of people. The UN Security Council declared in late December that it strongly condemned the attempts to usurp the will of the people, and that it supported President- elect Barrow to restore the rule of law in the country and respect the will of the people. Strong words have to be backed up by strong and coordinated action. At the recent Munich Security Conference numerous voices, from Angela Merkel to UN Secretary General Antonia Guterres, used the catchphrase multilateral to discuss the challenges, such as terrorism, the world faces. But multilateralism is easier said than done.

Hundreds of millions of people in numerous countries have been sentenced to live in country-like prisons due the unwillingness to confront dictators and authoritarian regimes. The regimes of countries like Venezuela are allowed to destroy the lives of their people, jail and torture opposition figures, and do irreparable harm with little blowback. The Castros and Assads and many other feudal familial regimes are allowed to run countries as if they were their own familys slave-estates rather than have multi-party elections.

We forget what this does to countries in the long term. Mexicos problems today, from infrastructure to the drug conflict, are largely the result of the rot that set in during Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) rule from 1929 to 2000. Egypts economy stagnated under Honsi Mubaraks long tenure.

North Korea is one large prison.

We fear using military action and political isolation against tyrannical regimes under the guise of supporting dialogue and peace. There is a fantasy that sanctions will strengthen regimes, so the only real way to defeat tyranny is to reward it. But where is the evidence that dialogue and free trade with tyranny works? Iran, Algeria, Tajikistan, Eritrea, Cambodia, Cameroon long is the list of countries with leaders or parties who have been in power for decades. Are we ensuring the increased march of democracy today, or has a new tyranny taken root in many places? What peace is there when others are not free? Are they who are left under tyranny enjoying peace, or are we simply abdicating responsibility? Gambia was an inspiring example of what can happen when people demand change and their demands are supported by their neighbors. We often pretend that national borders are sacrosanct. As if by accident of birth a person living a few miles away from his neighbor deserves to live in a police state. But many borders are arbitrary; what is not arbitrary is human rights and natural rights. European colonial powers drew arbitrary borders in Africa and parts of the Middle East and because of them one person votes in elections and can read several newspapers and use Twitter, and another cannot. Regional frameworks such as ECOWAS can help ensure that the trends across borders are toward more rights, not less. It would be good if the efforts are recognized. International and state visits to these countries, a Nobel prize, financial support and media coverage might go a way toward showcasing what was achieved in Gambia.

Follow the author @Sfrantzman

Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin

More here:
Terra Incognita: The Gambia's defense of democracy is a lesson for us all - Jerusalem Post Israel News

By AsiaToday reporter Jina Koh Will Hong Kong be China in 2047?

A wheel of fortune was set up at the Lunar New Year fair in Victoria Park in Hong Kong. It featured the faces of potential candidates for Hong Kong's next leader who will assume office in July. It was installed by the pro-democracy Civic Party.

As the wheel of fortune cannot determine the fate of Hong Kong, neither can Hong Kongers decide their own fate. And the city's Millennials cry out, "It's fake democracy."

The Civic Party's Alvin Yeung pointed out in an interview with the New York Times on Jan. 27. that whichever candidate the wheel picks, none of them will be the real choice because the upcoming election is not a genuine one.

Previously on Tuesday, nomination of candidates for Hong Kong's chief executive race began in the city. The 1,194 members of the city's election committee will nominate candidates until March 1. An entrant needs 150 nominations from the committee to qualify for the race, and 601 votes to win in the election on March 26. Once approved by the Chinese government, the winner will officially take office in July.

The next Hong Kong leader will be elected via indirect election. Hong Kong citizens do not have the right to vote. At the Chinese National People's Congress (NPC) in August 2014, the Chinese government pronounced that Hong Kong must accept an indirect election system for the chief executive. According to Chinese authorities, the candidates should be "patriots supported by more than half of the nominating committee members." In other words, it's the Chinese leadership who has the right to choose.

Although China justifies itself by promising Hong Kong citizens' direct election system after nominating candidates from the 1,200-member nominating committee, it's obvious that the next chief executive will act as a puppet of China.

China's decision virtually ignored the basic law that guarantees Hong Kong's direct election system, which eventually led to the Umbrella Revolution that shocked the world.

Hong Kong fears its destiny of being fully integrated to China in 2047. The Umbrella Revolution was the outlet for young Hong Kongers to overcome that fear. Citizens, including students, came out on the streets to protest against China's decision.

The demonstration led to the emergence of pro-independence parties and new faces (who are primarily Millennials) calling for the city's right to self-determination.

Hong Kong's youngest lawmaker Nathan Law, who was a key student leader of the Umbrella Revolution and later became the chairperson of political party Demosisto, emphasized the pursuit of self-determination after being elected last year.

"I'm not advocating independence, I'm advocating Hong Kong people should enjoy their rights of self-determination," he said. His goal is to push for a referendum to decide Hong Kong's sovereignty status in 10 or 20 years. He also revealed that he will fight against the communist party.

The desire to seek sovereignty just like Mr. Law is more prominent among young people. According to a survey conducted by the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) in July 2016, more than 17% of poll respondents supported independence for Hong Kong when its 50-year "one country, two systems" agreement expires in 2047. However, the figure was nearly 40% in the 15-24 age group.

The Hong Kong government, under the interference of the Chinese government, is controlling such movement. Last year, the government won the lawsuit seeking to disqualify two pro-independence legislator-elects Sixtus Baggio Leung and Yau Wai-ching who pledged to safeguard the interests of the Hong Kong people with a banner stating "Hong Kong Is Not China" at their swearing-in. The two lawmakers appealed to the court, however the High Court dismissed their appeal.

The court also slapped student leaders Nathan Law, Joshua Wong, and Alex Chow with the charge of participating in an unlawful assembly in August last year. They appealed against the court's decision, and the court hearing will begin in May.

In fact, Hong Kong is a humiliating historical scene for China. After losing the Opium War, China handed over Hong Kong Island to Britain. Under British rule, the island grew to become one of the most democratic cities in Asia.

The "one country, two systems" concept is merely a perfunctory system for Hong Kong people. They are doubtful about this system that claims to allow Hong Kong's autonomous right. If the candidate chosen by the Chinese authorities becomes Hong Kong's chief executive, China's Hong Kong intervention would worsen even further and the city would be fully controlled by China in 2047.

It is highly unlikely that the pan-democratic camp will win in the election. Pro-democracy groups that has some 320 election committee members could take a strategic choice by selecting an opposition-friendly candidate as the next best plan.

The wave of Chinese socialism is inevitable. Hong Kong is in the midst of changing political ideology. When Deng Xiaoping agreed to practice the "one Country, two Systems" policy in 1997, he sought coexistence of political ideas between China and Hong Kong. However, China has no reason to maintain socialism and even adopt the concept of capitalism in order to stick to Hong Kong's democratic method that revived the economy. As long as Hong Kong is under the control of Chinese socialism, the power of the judiciary and freedom of speech will obviously disappear.

2047 is the year in which the one country, two systems principle expires. Will Hong Kong's democracy survive in 2047?

Here is the original post:
Will Hong Kong's Democracy Survive in 2047? - Huffington Post